The High Court discharged a man in his 50s from wardship and appointed an independent decision-making representative to assist with his personal welfare, healthcare, property and financial affairs.
In an ex-tempore ruling delivered on 21 March 2024, Mr Justice Mark Heslin declared under the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 that the man, referred to as Mr L, lacked capacity to make decisions in those areas even with the assistance of a co-decision-maker. The judge appointed Ms Q, an experienced social worker nominated from the court’s panel, as his decision-making representative (DMR).
The application was brought by the General Solicitor for Minors and Wards of Court. The judge said Mr L had acquired a brain injury after being assaulted in 1998 and had been admitted to wardship in 2009. He had lived at the same address since 2011 and received support from mental health and community brain injury services, with additional private help at home.
The court relied on an uncontested report by consultant psychiatrist Dr C, who assessed Mr L in November 2023. The report described difficulties making financial decisions, including planning and budgeting, weighing spending choices and assessing the risk of exploitation. It also identified impaired decision-making about medication, including in light of previous impulsive overdoses, and some personal welfare decisions concerning occupancy of his home and support with daily activities.
Mr L had written to the Wards of Court Office about discharging a mortgage balance on a property and raised the matter in his submission. The judge said the letter could not be treated as a capacitous financial instruction and that the office could not act on it; the issue would be for the DMR. The ruling does not state how that matter was ultimately resolved.
Mr L had identified his wife and his case coordinator as possible representatives, but neither could take on the role. The judge said Mr L had accepted an explanation that an independent, specially trained person could be appointed, and that the transition was expected to make little difference to the existing management of his welfare and best interests. The court also noted that no enduring power of attorney or advance healthcare directive was known to exist.
The orders included transferring management of Mr L’s affairs from wardship to the DMR, authorising the DMR to receive and protect the assets listed in the application, and requiring the DMR to account to the Decision Support Service. The DMR cannot be paid or reimbursed from Mr L’s assets. The court ordered a review of his capacity no later than three years after the ruling and imposed reporting restrictions. The applicant did not seek costs.